The "line of succession" is not a recognized feature of the law, but rather a convenient way of looking at who moves up when who dies, so his lack of inclusion in it cannot constitute discrimination.

This is an excellent and significant point. This line isn't like a regular line/queue at all, where one's position is going to confer a guaranteed benefit in time; e.g. the right to purchase a ticket when you eventually get to the box office. For one thing, there are constantly new people jumping the queue. For another, only a very very few who are in the line are ever going to get to the box office to purchase that ticket.

I think it much more nakedly political than merely propping up the Church of England. The Act gave the Parliament the power to determine the succession to the Crown, and was designed to ensure the Protestant Succession and deny the descendants of the deposed James II any legal right to the Crown. The Parliament considered the Electress Sophia of Hanover the "next best" successor to Queen Anne, and all now flows from her.

Exactly. This confirms that the Act of Settlement has outlived its purposes and usefulness, by anyone. It's a useless act today. It's just .... there, existing for no purpose than to annoy students of constitutional law.

My husband and I were a mixed faith couple at the time of our marriage. We would not have had a valid marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church had a Roman Catholic priest or permanent deacon not been present as a witness (the actual officiant was a Protestant minister). The dispensation is to allow marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic:

"Without the express permission of the competent authority, marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons, one of whom was baptized in the catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act, the other of whom belongs to a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the catholic Church."Canon 1124 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church.

My understanding is that unless there is a Catholic priest or deacon present to witness in an official role, the Church takes the view that no valid marriage took place:

"Can. 1127 ß1 The provisions of can. 1108 are to be observed in regard

to the form to be used in a mixed marriage."

"Canon 1108: Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest or of the priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who, in the presence of two witnesses, assists, in accordance however with the rules set out in the following canons, and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in canon 144, 1112 ß1, 1116 and 1127 ß2‚3.

ß2 Only that person who, being present, asks the contracting parties to manifest their consent and in the name of the Church receives it, is understood to assist at a marriage."

So in other words, the way I understand it, if there is not a Catholic priest or deacon involved in this wedding, and assuming Autumn does not renounce her Catholic faith, Autumn would not be validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church because of a defect in the form of the marriage (how they got married).

It is true that in mixed marriages, the Catholic spouse is expected to raise the children Catholic, and that the non-Catholic spouse is not to impede those efforts.

The fact that the Act of Settlement may tempt someone to give up their faith is just terrible.

Any marriage involving a Catholic is subject to Church norms known as "canon law." Catholics are obliged to marry in the Catholic Church, following the marriage rite of the Catholic Church. Their exchange of vows must be witnessed by either a priest or deacon and two other witnesses. A Catholic can receive permission to marry a non-Catholic and they may be married in the church of the non-Catholic party, but if their exchange of vows will be witnessed by a minister of that denomination, the Catholic must seek a written dispensation from the local Catholic Bishop. Any priest or deacon in one of our local parishes can assist in this matter.Getting Married in the Catholic Church

Maybe it's different in the United States.. The parties still have to go through the same things though in order for the marriage to be recognized.

Taking into account this absurd discussion about Miss. Kelly’s Catholic membership, in connection with her future wedding to the smartest of the Queen’s grandsons, Peter Phillips, I find that it is time that the British Parliament must derogate as soon as possible this preposterous so-called Settlement Act, which is in open violation with the European Convention on Human Rights, remembering that this one has been adopted by the British Parliament in 1998, so it is law of the land now in Britain, your Government should put and end to this aberration. I am persuaded that the UK must fulfil with its duties towards the European Convention of Human Rights, which forbids this kind of bigotry, it is quite ridiculous, if you take into account that for a thousand years, most of the Kings of England were Catholics till Henry VIII “The defender of the Faith” title given by Pope Leo X, thanks to his defence of Catholicism when Luther attacked the Church, He was the man who broke with Rome, just because the Pope did not accept his unlawful divorce of Queen Catherine, like many of his counsellors rejected as well, amongst them John Fisher and Thomas More who before being executed said: “I die a good subject to the King, but to God first!». More was not the first Catholic martyr, but thousands had followed him, persecutions will last for almost three centuries. The first Catholic King after Queen Elizabeth I was going to be King James II, his predecessor, Charles II took the holy communion from a Jesuit before he passed away, Their mother Queen Henrietta Marie wife of Charles I was another Catholic, and so were the majority of the oldest nobility of England (not the Cecil’s indeed), Scotland and Ireland and most commoners, which were forced to convert to Anglicanism if not they were considered traitors and paid with their lives those who did not obey. {religious digression deleted - Elspeth} I would like to remind you that the Duchess of Kent, Princess Michael of Kent, Lord and Lady Nicholas Windsor, The Earl and the Countess of Saint Andrews (members of the royal family) the Duke and Duchess of Norfolk first Peer of England, and many others are Catholics. {religious material deleted - Elspeth} England is a country, which has more Catholic worshipers than Anglicans. {religious material deleted - Elspeth} In times of Queen Victoria, her son Alfred Duke of Edinburgh married Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia, daughter of Tsar Alexander II “The Liberator of serfdom” she was an Orthodox and never became an Anglican, she continue to be devoted to the Orthodox Church till her death and nobody said a word about it. So why make such differences with Catholics? I would like to have an answer. {religious material deleted - Elspeth}

I really don't think your pro-Roman Catholic diatribe has a place in a forum like this.

Henry's break from Rome had more to do with his desire to actually have total control in England than the divorce which was a convenient excuse (hopefully within the next week or two I will have my article on this issue in the article section of this forum).

He wanted the same power in England as the kings of Spain and France had but the pope wasn't prepared to allow it.

As a stauch protestant, of Irish descent (who left Ireland due to Roman Catholic attacks on their home and family), I find your comments offensive in the extreme.

I really don't think your pro-Roman Catholic diatribe has a place in a forum like this.

Henry's break from Rome had more to do with his desire to actually have total control in England than the divorce which was a convenient excuse (hopefully within the next week or two I will have my article on this issue in the article section of this forum).

He wanted the same power in England as the kings of Spain and France had but the pope wasn't prepared to allow it.

As a stauch protestant, of Irish descent (who left Ireland due to Roman Catholic attacks on their home and family), I find your comments offensive in the extreme.

Dear lady, I had not have the slightest intention to offend you or anyone else in this forum, {religious digression deleted - Elspeth} someday nobody will discuss why a Roman Catholic woman or man cannot wed a member of the Hanoverian dynasty in England, because nobody will care about this matter. As I said earlier I find ridiculous that a member of the current British royal family cannot marry a Catholic without loosing her or his rights to the throne, Prince Phillip was originally Greek Orthodox and his grandfather George I of Greece was a Prince of Denmark, from the Lutheran tradition, converted to Orthodoxy in order to be accepted as King of Greece, his wife was a Russian Grand Duchess, Queen Olga of Greece, cousin to Maria Alexandrovna who eventually married Alfred Duke of Edinburgh without any opposition, in spite that she never became a member of the church of England. {Religious material deleted - Elspeth} And speaking about Henry VIII there are many documents and books, his schism from Rome was just because the Pope did not accept his divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and being an incredible smart person, but at the same time extremely arrogant, he could not accept that anyone, including the Pope would not consent his behaviour, which was in open violation with the Church’s teachings and rules. Other European Kings challenged Rome, but finally like the French King during the papacy of Avignon, finally accepted the authority of the Roman Sovereign Pontiff as the head of the Church. Sincerely yours Reich Graf LAFWvPzK JD.

Any marriage involving a Catholic is subject to Church norms known as "canon law." Catholics are obliged to marry in the Catholic Church, following the marriage rite of the Catholic Church. Their exchange of vows must be witnessed by either a priest or deacon and two other witnesses. A Catholic can receive permission to marry a non-Catholic and they may be married in the church of the non-Catholic party, but if their exchange of vows will be witnessed by a minister of that denomination, the Catholic must seek a written dispensation from the local Catholic Bishop. Any priest or deacon in one of our local parishes can assist in this matter.Getting Married in the Catholic Church

Maybe it's different in the United States.. The parties still have to go through the same things though in order for the marriage to be recognized.

My niece Patricia married a German Lutheran here in Buenos Aires, and our priest just asked him if he was going to accept that their children will be educated in accordance with the Catholic faith, and just two hours later the wedding took place. In California they had lots of "red tapes", so when they arrived for their honey moon in Buenos Aires, they were extremely happy that nobody block her intention to marry through the Church, she wanted as the most important factor for her marital life, to have a Catholic wedding and not only a civil one. There are very different approaches depending from each Bishop or Archbishop, here they did not have the some problems than in San Francisco.

I really don't think your pro-Roman Catholic diatribe has a place in a forum like this.

Henry's break from Rome had more to do with his desire to actually have total control in England than the divorce which was a convenient excuse (hopefully within the next week or two I will have my article on this issue in the article section of this forum).

He wanted the same power in England as the kings of Spain and France had but the pope wasn't prepared to allow it.

As a stauch protestant, of Irish descent (who left Ireland due to Roman Catholic attacks on their home and family), I find your comments offensive in the extreme.

That's not what I have studied in my history books, and no offense but I have a history degree, took a whole year of English history, and wrote a paper specifically researching the English Reformation.. Henry wanted a divorce partly because he wanted an heir to the throne, plus he did start to think that perhaps his marriage was cursed. The Church wouldn't/couldn't give him a divorce because 1. They had already issued him a dispensation for marrying his sister in law, and 2 (More cynicallly). Catherine of Aragon's nephew was the Holy Roman Emperor who at that time was holding the pope hostage. Even if Henry had control of the Church of England a la France, the status of his marriage would have been regarded as a Church marriage.

Another thing is that the English people adored Queen Catherine. She was charitable, and at one point she even defended England from a Scotish invasion. The fact is henry's decisions hurt a lot of people, but probably the person they hurt the most was Mary. Because she was made illegitimate and marriage was put off for her for years, to the point where she couldn't have children any more (when she finally did marry.) A lot of people lost their lives do to Henry's little "power grab"

Let's not get hot under the collar about this. We can all, presumably, agree that the prohibition against a Catholic marriage is well and truly past its sell-by date. People's religion today is a highly personal matter and no longer the business of the state - well, not in the West, and possibly elsewhere.

But we shouldn't ignore nor gloss over the actual historical facts.

1.Henry VIII's title 'Defender of the Faith' was given to him by the Pope! This was in response to Henry's attack on Martin Luther, for which the Pope was immensely grateful. It is, therefore, ironic that the secular head of a protestant church continues to use the title.

2. The pope was indeed about to grant Henry VIII his divorce from Katharine of Aragon. However, her uncle, The Holy Roman Emperor, was at war with Rome and had surrounded the city. To appease him and secure release, the Pope withdrew, under protest, his decision to allow Henry VIII the annulment which would have allowed him to marry Anne Boleyn without penalty.

3. Despite the popular conception of Henry VIII as gross and vain, and a wife-murderer, to boot, (he actually murdered one woman, AB, not six) he was one of the very few English monarchs who had a measurable IQ. He had a brilliant and cultured mind and he knew precisely what he was doing when he set up a rival 'church'. One of the very few succeeding monarchs who had anything approaching his intellectual genius was his daughter, Elizabeth I, who actually surpassed him, surprisingly, in intelligence.

4. The Act of Settlement, manifestly and undoubtedly prejudiced, came about after more than 100 years of turmoil and disruption, when, in particular, attacks upon the lives of reigning monarchs had occasioned great alarms, chaos, and even caused a civil war. It's not too easy for us, living hundreds of years away from the events, to appreciate just how frightening the religious divide really was and the radical social implications and terror of the divide. Those days, hopefully, are well and truly behind us.

Today's Prince of Wales, an avid student of history, knows this, I'm sure. I refer to his oft repeated comments that he wants to be acknowledged as the Defender of Faith, not THE faith. The Church of England's privileged position as part of the social and legal structure of the monarchy is, apparently, not for him. And good for the prince! There is every sign that he's embracing C21 with elan and understanding, for which those of us of all and of every religion, have reason to be grateful.

In this, as in so many other ways, I look forward to Charles' assuming the throne. I believe that he'll herald many innovations to our mutual benefit. Which is not to say, naturally, that I don't wish for a continuing long and healthy life for our beloved Queen.

Just a reminder that although discussion of religion is OK under the rules as long as it relates directly to royalty, we're not going to allow this thread to degenerate into a general discussion about the relative merits of Catholic and Protestant Christianity or any other religion or sect.

Please be considerate of your fellow posters and cognizant of the forum rules.

That's not what I have studied in my history books, and no offense but I have a history degree, took a whole year of English history, and wrote a paper specifically researching the English Reformation.. Henry wanted a divorce partly because he wanted an heir to the throne, plus he did start to think that perhaps his marriage was cursed. The Church wouldn't/couldn't give him a divorce because 1. They had already issued him a dispensation for marrying his sister in law, and 2 (More cynicallly). Catherine of Aragon's nephew was the Holy Roman Emperor who at that time was holding the pope hostage. Even if Henry had control of the Church of England a la France, the status of his marriage would have been regarded as a Church marriage.

Another thing is that the English people adored Queen Catherine. She was charitable, and at one point she even defended England from a Scotish invasion. The fact is henry's decisions hurt a lot of people, but probably the person they hurt the most was Mary. Because she was made illegitimate and marriage was put off for her for years, to the point where she couldn't have children any more (when she finally did marry.) A lot of people lost their lives do to Henry's little "power grab"

I have more than one year of English history - actually I have one year of the English Reformation and then another two years of English history in my degree plus a Masters degree (involving another four years part time study) which was also mostly in English Reformation History.

I do know my material and Henry actually never became an Anglican and died a Roman Catholic but he wanted the same authority in England that the kings of Spain and France had at that time over the church in their respective countries.

The fact that the pope was under the control of the Holy Roman Emperor, who was also the King of Spain and Katherine's aunt, is why the pope wouldn't allow Henry any change in the situation - the Spanish were not going to allow the insult and told the pope no way mate!

As for the Act of Settlement personally I don't have a problem with it and would hate to see it changed in any way. I have my personal reasons which I will not discuss here.

As for the discrimination by the various royal houses can anyone tell me why the British get into hot water for not allowing a person/spouse to belong to one particualar branch of Christianity while other thrones insist that the person and spouse must belong to only one branch of Christianity at the exclusion of all others e.g. Crown Princess Mary HAD to convert from Protestant Presbyterianism to Protestant Lutheranism in order to marry Frederick as only a Lutheran can be monarch or the spouse of the monarch. The same thing applies in Sweden - e.g. if Madelaine were to marry Prince William she could keep her denomination but if Harry were to marry Victoria he would have to convert to Lutheranism? No one seems to find these rules discriminatory but only the one that picks on the RC who are obliged to follow the teachings of a foreign Head of State - remember that the Pope is a Head of State in his own right.

As for the discrimination by the various royal houses can anyone tell me why the British get into hot water for not allowing a person/spouse to belong to one particualar branch of Christianity while other thrones insist that the person and spouse must belong to only one branch of Christianity at the exclusion of all others e.g. Crown Princess Mary HAD to convert from Protestant Presbyterianism to Protestant Lutheranism in order to marry Frederick as only a Lutheran can be monarch or the spouse of the monarch. The same thing applies in Sweden - e.g. if Madelaine were to marry Prince William she could keep her denomination but if Harry were to marry Victoria he would have to convert to Lutheranism? No one seems to find these rules discriminatory but only the one that picks on the RC who are obliged to follow the teachings of a foreign Head of State - remember that the Pope is a Head of State in his own right.

I think this is because, in a country with an established religion, a case could be made for the monarch and (to a lesser extent) the spouse to have to belong to that religion. However, in a country with an established religion where the spouse isn't required to belong to it, it's discriminatory to say "oh, but you can't belong to this one other religion but feel free to belong to any other religion you like." If they want to require that a person marrying someone high in the line of succession convert to CofE Christianity, fair enough. But to say that the spouse can be anything from Pagan to atheist to Rastafarian to Orthodox Jew to Wahhabist Islam to Satanist to Buddhist, just as long as s/he isn't Roman Catholic, is discrimination.

I have more than one year of English history - actually I have one year of the English Reformation and then another two years of English history in my degree plus a Masters degree (involving another four years part time study) which was also mostly in English Reformation History.

I do know my material and Henry actually never became an Anglican and died a Roman Catholic but he wanted the same authority in England that the kings of Spain and France had at that time over the church in their respective countries.

The fact that the pope was under the control of the Holy Roman Emperor, who was also the King of Spain and Katherine's aunt, is why the pope wouldn't allow Henry any change in the situation - the Spanish were not going to allow the insult and told the pope no way mate!

As for the Act of Settlement personally I don't have a problem with it and would hate to see it changed in any way. I have my personal reasons which I will not discuss here.

As for the discrimination by the various royal houses can anyone tell me why the British get into hot water for not allowing a person/spouse to belong to one particualar branch of Christianity while other thrones insist that the person and spouse must belong to only one branch of Christianity at the exclusion of all others e.g. Crown Princess Mary HAD to convert from Protestant Presbyterianism to Protestant Lutheranism in order to marry Frederick as only a Lutheran can be monarch or the spouse of the monarch. The same thing applies in Sweden - e.g. if Madelaine were to marry Prince William she could keep her denomination but if Harry were to marry Victoria he would have to convert to Lutheranism? No one seems to find these rules discriminatory but only the one that picks on the RC who are obliged to follow the teachings of a foreign Head of State - remember that the Pope is a Head of State in his own right.

Henry did consider himself a good Catholic all of his life, but he died excommunited from the Catholic Church. As for the Pope, the Pope was no longer being held prisoner by the Holy Roman Empire by the time Henry left the Church in 1533. That was actually several years earlier. And there was another reason the Church was refusing, they had already granted Henry a dispensation so that he could marry Catherine. To nullify their marriage, would mean for the Catholic Church to say they didn't have the power to grant such dispensations, which was sorry something the Catholic Church was not going to say.

And Henry's hypocrisy was this. Henry said that his marriage to Catherine was illegal because she had been married to his brother and due to Leviticus, that would mean that he saw his brother's nakedness. Even though, Catherine herself claims the marriage was never consumated and there are Scripture verses in the Old Testament which say that if someone's brother dies childless the person should marry his brother's widow to produce an heir.

But Henry wanted the Church to nullify his marriage on the grounds above. But, here's the kicker, Henry had slept with Anne's sister, and had even had children with her. He wanted the Church to grant him a dispensation for that! So legally, Henry wasn't exactly on great grounds.

As for Sweden, the Lutheran Church is no longer the established Church in Sweden, and as such I believe Crown Princess Victoria can be any religion she wants. Personally, I think an established religion is ridiculous in the first place. IF the British wanted to say the King/Queen must marry an Anglican, fine. But that's not what they are saying.. Peter Phillips could marry an atheist, he could marry a Satanist, heck he could marry a Muslim, but he cannot marry a Catholic, and that isn't fair.

Mary Boleyn was Henry's mistress before Anne came to English court (Anne first served in the household of Margaret of Habsburg, and then was lady-in-waiting for Queen Cloude of France). It was alegged, but never supported with enough evidence, that one of Mary's daughters was Henry's. However all of her children were recognized by her husband.

__________________Queen Elizabeth: "I cannot lead you into battle, I do not give you laws or administer justice but I can do something else, I can give you my heart and my devotion to these old islands and to all the peoples of our brotherhood of nations." God, Save The Queen!

This may not be the right thread, but I just read in my last issue of Majesty magazine that Peter Phillips won't have to give up his place in the line of succession if Autumn Kelley renounces Catholicism. This contradicts my understanding of the Act of Settlement (I think that the royal who believes a former or practicing Catholic has to give up his/her place), but I would also assume that Ingrid Seward has significant connections, possibly at BP, that would enable her to make that statement. Or is Ingrid just making her own assumption?

I'm not sure the Act of Settlement mentioned the case of a Protestant who used to be a Catholic. Maybe it was working under the assumption of once a Catholic always a Catholic regardless of what people said.